Re: Push for holy war an issue left in silence, by Martin Dyckman, Oct. 10.
Associate Editor Martin Dyckman can be commended for taking a position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that advocates complete withdrawal from all of Gaza and the West Bank. If the Israeli government then chooses to build a security wall/fence "entirely on its own territory," as draconian as that is, that would truly be a welcome step in establishing Israel as a sincere partner in negotiations for peace with its Palestinian neighbors.
The St. Petersburg Times would do well to hammer this theme in subsequent editorials. Awarding Israel the moral high ground is debatable. Even if it brings this improbable scenario to fruition, Israel carries a lot of unattractive baggage in its past and recent history.
Regarding the recent pronouncements by the Presbyterians and Episcopalians and other groups that are suggesting divestment as a means of bringing Israel to the table, I think it unfair to criticize these actions. Continuing to remain silent when one has the resources to influence an outcome is a morally indefensible position, particularly when gross violations of international law and human rights are hanging in the balance. Whether these policies "invite disrespect" or not, they worked in South Africa, and the world supported them. Divestment will work in Israel, and the world should support it.
-- Gerald Heidel, Tampa Bay Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, St. Petersburg
Sharon didn't cause intifada
Re: Push for holy war an issue left in silence.
I am very surprised that Martin Dyckman is still repeating the canard that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount started the latest intifada. This is tantamount to the president and vice president continuing to claim there is a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq, which we now know to be patently unfounded. There is no credible evidence to draw that connection or the one between Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount and the intifada. It is like repeating one of those nutty Internet urban legends. Sounds plausible, but competely untrue.
Just what Dyckman means by getting "out of Gaza and the whole West Bank" is a mystery since even the U.N. resolution does not state that Israel must return to the exact borders of the 1967 armistice. A large part of the security fence is already on pre-1967 land, some of it is being moved for humanitarian reasons following an Israeli Supreme Court decision, and the sections that are over the so-called green line are necessary to protect Israelis and could be moved in the event Israel and the Palestinians ever reach an agreement.
Israel has never conceded the moral high ground. In fact, the moral high ground means it does not have to allow its citizens to explode in pizza parlors or on city buses in order to make many Western governments and NGOs, or the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, appear less anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, pretext or not.
-- Susan Segal, Palm Harbor
A push toward theocracy
Re: Push for holy war an issue left in silence, by Martin Dyckman, Oct. 10, and Evangelicals sway policy in new era, by Wes Allison, Oct. 11.
Both articles give credence to the theory that there are forces in place to convert our way of life to a theocracy. These evangelicals Wes Allison writes about put too much faith in George W. Bush. Bush confesses to having God on his side, and God is behind all his decisions. Bush can do no wrong. With that godly attitude, he can't admit to any mistakes. That's dangerous.
The president and his cabal of new world converters have interpolated a new foreign policy and, conjoined with his evangelical Christian beliefs, have shepherded us on a dangerous and contrived crusade. I'm worried. It seems he's out to change the world. We have met him before. The archives of history chronicle such calamitous leaders.
I'm worried because it seems we have seceded from the family of nations and have embraced a new doctrine of acting alone, unencumbered by world opinion, international law or the concern of allies.
I'm worried that we trust our lives and our future to a leader who believes our immense military power entitles us to dominate the world and to ignore the common rules that bind nations.
I'm worried that Bush's dividing the world into good and evil has taken us on a messianic mission to change the Middle East, and this behavior has incited the Muslims to retaliate even more.
I'm worried that we are ignoring the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as it pleads for an answer, both sides terrified that the situation is approaching a cataclysmic outcome.
It might be time to heed the words of the great philosopher Blaise Pascal, who wisely said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-- Frank J. Koskosky, Bayonet Point
Good ideas not being followed
Re: Four hard truths point to a way out of Iraq, Oct. 10.
This excellent article by John Whitbeck points to a way out of our deteriorating relations with countries in the Middle East. His four hard truths are worth repeating in an abbreviated way.
America is not hated throughout the Arab world because "we love freedom" but because of our policies in the Middle East.
Resistance to our occupation of Iraq will continue as long as we remain there in force.
No Iraqi government can survive without earning patriotic (possibly anti-American) credentials.
We might have to face the fact that a democratically elected government in Iraq might be anti-American.
Whitbeck goes on to say that the United States must take the initiative and sustain a vigorous effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on international law and justice. He says if this were accomplished, those involved in violent resistance would have nothing left to resist against.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has acted in direct contrast to these ideas. Administration officials claim there is no one to talk to except Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Therefore, they have done nothing. They are building 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.
Bush administration officials say they plan to withdraw our military from Iraq as soon as possible, but can you believe them? Their record on truth-telling is not that great, and why are they building those 14 permanent military bases in Iraq?
-- Joseph A. Mahon, St. Petersburg
Keep court appointments in mind
Robyn E. Blumner in her Oct. 10 Perspective column, Robed heroes of liberty, states: "But Bush is fighting back by trying to transform the federal judiciary - determinedly picking judges who share his disdain for individual rights." And, "Once the federal judiciary is firmly under Bush's control there will be no countervailing force standing for transparency, due process and personal freedom."
For those who want an independent judiciary, one would think that this should be a good reason not to return George Bush to the White House, when it is surmised that at least three current Supreme Court justices will be replaced in the four-year term of the president elected Russell Lee Johnson, St. Petersburg
-- Taking names to the polls
Re: Lawmakers: It's payback time for hike in phone rates, Oct. 10.
If you haven't read Howard Troxler's column on Page 1B last Sunday, go back and read it. The last 20 or so lines name the legislators who voted for the phone companies and against us. These lines also name the legislators who voted against the phone companies and for us.
I have cut this list out and tucked it into my wallet. When I'm at the polls next month I intend to refer to it to help me determine who to vote for and who to vote against. Please vote!
-- Bill Richards, Trinity
[Last modified October 16, 2004, 01:13:08]
